Search form

Are we in the matrix? Physicist James Gates reveals why string theory stretches our imaginations about the nature of reality. Also, how failure makes us more complete, and imagination makes us more knowledgeable.

Share Episode

Shortened URL

Guests

is Toll Professor of Physics and Director of the Center for String and Particle Theory at the University of Maryland in College Park. He serves on President Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Physicists have long sought to describe the universe in terms of equations. In this article, S. James Gates explains how research on a class of geometric symbols known as adinkras could lead to fresh insights into the theory of supersymmetry — and perhaps even the very nature of reality.

In response to a gathering at Westmont College exploring the role of science in liberal arts education, Mr. Gates develops his ideas on how how the sciences help us understand the value and meaning of our lives.

Reflections

Please keep in mind that I remember Dr. Gates comment explaining a physicist is going to lie when he speaks to the public, and my physics grade was saved by extra credit and lab quizzes...

Krista and Dr. Gates--well done, good and faithful...extremely stimulating conversation from childhood memories to super-symmetry in the cosmos. The primary notion I have kept thinking about since listening to your conversation is centered in String Theory. I get the explanation of how the Adinkra vibrate and are related in essence to the strings on a stringed instrument. However, one note that fell short for me was an explanation, or relation, of the varying Adinkra vibrations with the vibrations from differing stringed instruments. In other words, Dr. Gates used an analogy of a note (I think I remember C) being similar (in affect, not effect) to an electron, and other particles being in similitude to other notes on the scale. I guess my question could be stated: Notes in music can and are represented by vibration patterns visually, correct? A C note has a certain wave form. However a C note visualization from a piano would/should have a different pattern/representation from a Taylor guitar playing a C note. Additionally, I would think a C note played on the aforementioned Taylor by BB King is going to have a differing form than a C note played by Eric Clapton on the same Taylor using the same set of strings? If BB King played a C note on same Taylor with old strings, then replaces the strings with a new set, and play another C note, would they have differing representations (considering that you could make other variables constants/controls)?

I'm guessing Dr. Gates' description of String Theory was limited due to context and audience--either that or there are many facets of that string's vibration that are yet to be explored by physicists.

Wow, I'm at the point of needing to write a blog post due to my genuine interest propelled by ignorance.

Here's another set of thoughts I ran into while listening: Regarding Dr. Gates statements about physics being like language, i.e. you can have a non-fictional statement, but real/deeper meaning is gained when the text moves to poetry (I believe I remember Krista adding critical thought here as well). Immediately after listening to your conversation, I went to a group that I am mentoring for their 'Branding/Marketing' messages. I drew a parallel for them from your conversation, but went a step further. In marketing, there are 3 graphical representation types that can be used: Symbols (rational text), Icons (resemble the thing they stand for), and Indexes (primal; there is a physical connection to the thing they represent, i.e. a foot print). Drawing a parallel from your language function to graphical representation, a set could/would be: Symbols=Text (non-fiction, straight-forward statements); Icons=Poetry and/or Narrative/Fictional tales (text is put to rhythm or story, and the combination begins to contain deeper meaning); Index=Song (text/language is combined with rhythm and story, but sound vibrations are added)--Music is created. One of the primary aspects of these differing forms of communication is that Song is easiest remembered and yields the creates emotional connection. Another note should be made here regarding Dr. Gates' post on Akimbra--symbols and doodles make notes that are remembered much longer and understood more readily than an outline of text.

Since the time of the fire-lit cave walls, song has been the form of communication mankind has used to convey his understanding of the world that surrounds him. I believe String Theory sounds like the song of the universe.

I'm trying to understand your reference to the the tone that we call the note of "C" ,not sounding like "C" based on the instrument, or two different individuals playing an instrument, of which you use the guitar and piano as an example. I believe "C" vibrates at 440 hz regardless of who is striking the note;yes? Piano and guitar have different tonal qualities, as does a trumpet compared to a violin, but a "C" is still a "C", and thus vibrates at the same rate, if that "C" is played in a the same octave range. It'a an interesting point that you've brought up though.

the note A vibrates at 440 hz. This is what is called a fundamental frequency. Only a pure sinewave will have only a fundamental frequency. If you analyze sound in a frequency spectrum analyzer, you will see the fundamental freq as well as any harmonics and overtones created by the instrument recorded. The reason why pianos and guitars have different sound even while playing the same note is because the physical shape and size of the string as well as its method of being struck cause different harmonics and overtones thus producing a different sound even with the same fundamental frequency.

I am listening to the program as I write this. I still need to digest what I'm hearing. Gates is a great commnicator of his specialty - super symmetry. Next Wednesday is my 77th birthday and the interview has been an early present. I have a PhD in Rheology from Purdue University so science and physics is not foreign to me, but Gates' clarity was appreciated.
Calogero

Most scientists today are wrapped tightly in very narrow avenues of inquiry and thickly insulated from exploring broad metaphysical questions. James Gates opens doors, inspires imagination, and breathes new life into curiosities that my have become narrowed or faded over the years.

I want to thank you for the beauty of yesterdays show and for the flood of new images and perceptions it continues to gift me with. I happen to be reading a Miguel Serrano book of his relationships and conversations / letters with Herman Hesse and Carl Jung. Quite a synchronous endeavor, life! So, my mind continues to work in all these images and perceptions, in the cosmos in which I breathe, with many, as yet, unfinished streams of ideas coming to tentative conclusions to check out. The image of imagination that most pleases me so far is the congruity I am seeing between andrykas (sp?) and my image of these as mandalas appearing as if from the unconscious - underlying the mathemeticians labors of love searching, searching.... Thanks again and may you be well, happy and peaceful. Mike

An excellent program, of course. Listening to equations to hear what they have to say is a form of listening at prayer. Dialog with nature, dialog with mathematics, all at the same time in the presence of God.

Mr. Gates is a real physisicist: 'What we can't measure falls outside the realm of science'. 'Science does not permit us the illusion of certainty.' 'That question has to be left to theologians.' This is different from the scientists who claim science shows that theological truth is imagination, science can't say that. Theologians find that science supports its conclusions more and more.

It seems to me that a unified theory must exist, so it might be super string theory. It seems to me, for theological reasons (Revelation, new heavens and a new earth, 12 courses of stone), that it will be found to have 12 dimensions - but that's imagination from a scientific point of view. And imagination, as stated, leads where one looks for knowledge.

Isn't it beautiful that matter is a form of energy. Dovetails well with creation. And that it would be perfectly elegant and beautiful.

Not sure how 'we are essential to these new laws of physics', maybe it's in the uncut interview.

In some senses scienc is catching up to theology, but Mr. Gates is right, when science shows evidence for something that theology has asserted, it is a powerful reinforcement (e.g. that we come from one male and one female in the human genome project.)

It seems to me that there were two big bangs. The first in time was the creation of the physical universe, this is the one that scientists study. The second in time is the Incarnation of Jesus in Mary's womb: the start of the Kingdom of God on earth. Both develop and grow and expand. Theologians study the second. But (God does everything twice) they are related, of course, have similarities, and can inform each other.

I am embarrassed; but are you in danger when math makes you so happy? My personal discovery is math is the language of God and the universe. Human homeostasis is a complete formula. Sickness, anger, and that math pattern that does not fit with nature; it is an incomplete equation that the sickness or anger is produced because of the inability of the body to cycle the logarithmic equation present. There are thousands all running parallel in the body all at one time. They all produce energy unless the equation does not work then the energy is sent into the body as an affectation. To cure sickness fix the math. That part will take me longer. Thanks for listening.

That is a very perceptive concept. It fit's nicely with my thought that what we are currently experiencing may quite literally be a "hacked" reality. The "hack" is limited and superficial compared to the much larger, far more precise and perfectly efficient "system" it is interfering with and leeching off of. We can witness evidence of both but are fundamentally unable to untangle one from the other in any significant way. Your thought also fits with the concept that our reality and our interface with it is a type of quantum equation being solved on/in a computational "device" so (by our standards of intelligence) staggeringly complex we will likely be completely unable to map it in anything but the largest of general details. I read recently that there is a general debate as to why we find math in every aspect of reality, whether it be because we interpret it INTO the observation as a type of "language" or it exists of it own accord. I tend to find it more rational to understand that it is inherent in the observed phenomenon...which I believe supports the concept that we "exist" in and as a functioning part of a "technological system/device" of super-intelligent design possibly designed to sum some monumental equation. Consider for a moment, if the double slit experiment is reduced to it's fundamental rule, all conscious "intention/action" is evidence of a binary stream....1 this way...0 that way. I've heard this also described as a co-creative environment. Perhaps that IS the hack. Scary version: Perhaps consciousness itself is the objective of the "hack" but is an affront to the larger system.

I wrote this poem. It is titled Between Seasons
In the backyard-- overturned barrels, waterlogged pots the tarp intended to protect uprooted, splayed on the bruised cement. It is reassuring to be told the design will stabilize, branch out from a still point like a voice inside the self. From dead leaves, roots, torn weeds, and broken branches: the cadence of compost dark, golden potential. Patterns will emerge, says the physicist who argues against chaos theory, from the ripped cushion Flung from the chair, from a naked table frame can be deduced the rhythm below, a sublime design in the discard pile, the fact of theory. Linda Pizzi

I listen to your show as often as I can. I usually pick it up on my way to work on the weekends. A few months ago you did a show that was very interesting to me. You spoke about what it is that keeps us from losing our minds with all the bad, frightening, and often painful information we are bombarded with. I would like to read that again but can't remember what the name of the show was. Could you let me know?

Dr. Gates' use of pictorial representations for his ideas sounds like sacred geometry and Plato's forms. A related field is the biogeometry of Dr. Ibrahim Karim. This is about the energy of shape and how it affects well-being. For a great introduction to this work see http://www.biogeometry.org/page22.html. Dr. Ibrahim would be a great person to interview on On Being.

Good People, Until hearing Dr. Gates' closing story about Music and Scoring compared with Mathematics and Computing, one enormously significant factoid always stood in my way--blocking any reasonable and earnest access to string theory. "How can you NOT prove anything you want to prove when you resort to sets of partial differential equations with eleven variables?" is the mantra in my head for several years now. Perhaps Dr. Gates' story offers the prospect of approaching the "difficult" relationships in modern physics by somehow seeking to see the rain forest a little more coherently--and concisely (and elegantly)?
THANKS for engaging my imagination. - Ralph Palasek, Arlington, Virginia

What a fantastic show! I love sciencey content, especially on NPR, but this is something I did not expect from On Being. The ideas contained in this show are astounding, thought-provoking, and it produced one of those moments where I am really happy to have public radio.

As a mathematician, amateur author and philosopher, I have been exploring the possible cosmologies that arise from the quantum physics models of reality, both in my poetry and in my fiction. Indeed, I have as my status note on GMail that

"The Universe operates in the Rational number space, but I randomize using the Real number space, therefore I have free will.

" By this I mean that if the universe is a discrete simulation it must operate on the Rational number system, with planck distance and planck time being the cause for the discretization. In this case, eventually (after countably many cycles) all possible states and transitions must be experienced. (Here, countably is in the mathematical sense, the Rational numbers are of course, countable.) But such a universe is deterministic in the weak sense of the word, while if my interactions with the universe are based on the Real number system, then even the Universe cannot tell how I feel about my existence, and cannot predict with even quantum certainly what I will do, which certainly must be one of the oldest definitions of free will.

As a mathematician, amateur author and philosopher, I have been exploring the possible cosmologies that arise from the quantum physics models of reality, both in my poetry and in my fiction. Indeed, I have as my status note on GMail that

"The Universe operates in the Rational number space, but I randomize using the Real number space, therefore I have free will.

" By this I mean that if the universe is a discrete simulation it must operate on the Rational number system, with planck distance and planck time being the cause for the discretization. In this case, eventually (after countably many cycles) all possible states and transitions must be experienced. (Here, countably is in the mathematical sense, the Rational numbers are of course, countable.) But such a universe is deterministic in the weak sense of the word, while if my interactions with the universe are based on the Real number system, then even the Universe cannot tell how I feel about my existence, and cannot predict with even quantum certainly what I will do, which certainly must be one of the oldest definitions of free will.

My knowledge of physics and information science is limited, but this show was inspiring to me as a parish pastor. I couldn't help but think about the first creation story in Genesis in light of the discussion. First, God creates by speaking, and the first thing created is "light". So, there are two things in creation--darkness and light. Could that be the "0 and 1" which underlie everything else? Just a thought. Thanks for another thought-provoking show.

Fantastic interview. Krista did a wonderful job as usual. I thoroughly enjoyed S. William Gates, Jr. He has a rare ability to take complex concepts from physics and translate it into lay terms that I can understand. Moreover, Dr. Gates is an extremely thoughtful person and conscientious scientist who understands both the potential and limits of science without pretending that science can do philosophy or metaphysics.

I have posted some thoughts on the interview on my blog.
http://wp.me/p3pJsV-cG

What a fascinating conversation. I found myself pausing it numerous times to look up the theories and ideas Dr. Gates was discussing so I could have a deeper understanding of his thoughts and claims. The concept that mathematics can be a sensory experience and allow one to see the unseen was what I found to be the most interesting idea in the piece. I appreciated his example of Einstein being the first to “see” the electron via a mathematical equation; something that seems relatively impossible to someone who struggles with elementary elements of math! I was also struck by his disclosure that components fundamental to equations for supersymmetry mirror those found in computer code. I agree with his further explanation that just because two things are found to have similarities does not imply they are related, but agree it would be an interesting avenue to explore!

The overall conversation showed the power of the mathematical equation and its practical implications for everyday life. It moved math from purely scientific, finite discipline to a fluid concept that can address challenges in various disciplines. I appreciated Dr. James’ ability to discuss mathematics in a manner of possibilities and opportunities; his respect and enthusiasm for theoretical physics was evident through the conversation.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning's 'An Essay on Mind' (1826) would be worth your reading Ms. Tippett & Dr. Gates. Post Newton, Science positioned itself as superior and separated from culture. A very young & brilliant EBB wrote this long and detailed poem refusing this idea and declaring poetry / art as the superior process, with all due respect of course. One must also read Goethe's 'Theory of Color'. Similarly, he refused to accept that how the eye sees was something outside of his sight, his eye. I no longer see any of the disciplines as separate but rather in synergy with each other. All this of course very briefly stated.

Simulation have an "observer" POV. The very subjective act of "observer",simulating complex perception& intelligence, which cannot (yet) be matched even by the best supercomputer cluster is just astonishing. What is this "observer" ? Us? What is "us"? And why somehow we are tempted to relate "us" to the "simulated universe" ?